This particular piece has come out of a particularly controversial thought I had some time ago – are people equal?
People would like to be treated with as much respect as the next guy, usually without doing quite as much as him – whoever the next guy may be. I mean, take me as an example. It’s 12:40 in the afternoon, and I’m supposed to be working – that would be the responsible, correct thing to do. Nonetheless, I’m sitting at my desk, pretending to work, all the time publicizing my opinion on other people, and expecting it to be read and appreciated. Nonetheless, I will still continue with this farce, as emotionally, it satisfies me – hold on to that thought, I’ll come back to it later.
People are infinitely different in their characteristics, and in the combination of those characteristics. And that’s just where it begins – then comes the nurturing effect, which adds another modifier to what is already an incredibly complex piece of bio-machinery. The effect of nurture could turn one of a pair of identical twins into a cultured, thoughtful, respectful, contemplative mass murderer, while leaving the other a boorish, gullible, thoughtless, insensitive, average family guy. Which would you rather be?
We all start off in life at a similar stage – although the innate characteristics you possess are probably unique. I say probably for the simple reason that at present, there are about 4 billion people alive, and have been many billions before us – even with the kind of number of possible characteristic combinations there are, chances are that there will be some repeats.
(The problem with a piece like this is that there’s so many directions you cold possibly take – and only a very few of them will actually reach somewhere in an interesting manner.)
So, where have we reached so far?
There are billions and billions of combinations possible in your genetic makeup – so the chances of finding someone with your exact combination of characteristics are very, very low. Add to that the fact that nurture also has a hand in your final (I mean, at the point that you start to think about them – there is no end in the classical sense) makeup, and you see what I mean.
So why persist in the belief that people are equal?
Perhaps we mean that people should be treated equally – that’s possible, after all. Again, though, should we?
Society tapers as it approaches its peak. There are much fewer openings at the top than there are at the bottom – pretty much because the bottom is where we all start, and the top – say financially, socially, emotionally, spiritually, or any other alley that you choose, is where we’d like to end up. Of course, this is where a philosopher would interject and say that there are no alleys, only the Road, but that’s why they’re usually not invited to debates. Such finality takes all the fun out of a meandering thought process.
People would like to get to the top – in other words, there is competition for the few positions available. This is when the assumption of equality – even the assumption that we should be treated equally – goes out the window. If there is ‘top’, as it were, then how can we treat people equally? There must be some compensation at the top; so obviously, he’s already being treated better than everyone else below him. Secondly, if all people are equal, then where does the element of competition come in? Everybody wins, the ultimate goal of an egalitarian society.
So, obviously, there is a problem. Egalitarianism cannot exist while we are not equal, or rather, when there are fewer rewards than competitors – or when the rewards differ from each other. What to do?
One solution is to first accept that people have different characteristics, and therefore, desires. Not everyone wants money, or power, or a really expensive vacation, or something like that. Me, I’d settle for some peace of mind, and a lifetime career of writing. Once we’ve managed to get people to accept this, then we can proceed with locating the next step.
Perhaps if we structure society in a way that every industry rests on every other industry – mutual dependence to the hilt, as it were. No one at any point can then claim to be the most important – since any one industry collapsing would cause every other one to collapse as well.
Another solution is one I’ve picked out of Childhood’s End, by Arthur C. Clarke. Provide everyone with all the basic necessities of life – increase manufacturing of base goods to the extent that their prices plummet – free electricity, water, food, clothing, housing. Luxury goods then become the only marketable products – okay, I haven’t thought this through, and probably wont, since it’s starting to sound an awful lot like Microeconomics – but you see my point, I hope.
I don’t know any solution to this – and maybe a lot of people don’t even see it as a problem. If you do, however, and you have a couple of minutes to spare – any ideas?
People would like to be treated with as much respect as the next guy, usually without doing quite as much as him – whoever the next guy may be. I mean, take me as an example. It’s 12:40 in the afternoon, and I’m supposed to be working – that would be the responsible, correct thing to do. Nonetheless, I’m sitting at my desk, pretending to work, all the time publicizing my opinion on other people, and expecting it to be read and appreciated. Nonetheless, I will still continue with this farce, as emotionally, it satisfies me – hold on to that thought, I’ll come back to it later.
People are infinitely different in their characteristics, and in the combination of those characteristics. And that’s just where it begins – then comes the nurturing effect, which adds another modifier to what is already an incredibly complex piece of bio-machinery. The effect of nurture could turn one of a pair of identical twins into a cultured, thoughtful, respectful, contemplative mass murderer, while leaving the other a boorish, gullible, thoughtless, insensitive, average family guy. Which would you rather be?
We all start off in life at a similar stage – although the innate characteristics you possess are probably unique. I say probably for the simple reason that at present, there are about 4 billion people alive, and have been many billions before us – even with the kind of number of possible characteristic combinations there are, chances are that there will be some repeats.
(The problem with a piece like this is that there’s so many directions you cold possibly take – and only a very few of them will actually reach somewhere in an interesting manner.)
So, where have we reached so far?
There are billions and billions of combinations possible in your genetic makeup – so the chances of finding someone with your exact combination of characteristics are very, very low. Add to that the fact that nurture also has a hand in your final (I mean, at the point that you start to think about them – there is no end in the classical sense) makeup, and you see what I mean.
So why persist in the belief that people are equal?
Perhaps we mean that people should be treated equally – that’s possible, after all. Again, though, should we?
Society tapers as it approaches its peak. There are much fewer openings at the top than there are at the bottom – pretty much because the bottom is where we all start, and the top – say financially, socially, emotionally, spiritually, or any other alley that you choose, is where we’d like to end up. Of course, this is where a philosopher would interject and say that there are no alleys, only the Road, but that’s why they’re usually not invited to debates. Such finality takes all the fun out of a meandering thought process.
People would like to get to the top – in other words, there is competition for the few positions available. This is when the assumption of equality – even the assumption that we should be treated equally – goes out the window. If there is ‘top’, as it were, then how can we treat people equally? There must be some compensation at the top; so obviously, he’s already being treated better than everyone else below him. Secondly, if all people are equal, then where does the element of competition come in? Everybody wins, the ultimate goal of an egalitarian society.
So, obviously, there is a problem. Egalitarianism cannot exist while we are not equal, or rather, when there are fewer rewards than competitors – or when the rewards differ from each other. What to do?
One solution is to first accept that people have different characteristics, and therefore, desires. Not everyone wants money, or power, or a really expensive vacation, or something like that. Me, I’d settle for some peace of mind, and a lifetime career of writing. Once we’ve managed to get people to accept this, then we can proceed with locating the next step.
Perhaps if we structure society in a way that every industry rests on every other industry – mutual dependence to the hilt, as it were. No one at any point can then claim to be the most important – since any one industry collapsing would cause every other one to collapse as well.
Another solution is one I’ve picked out of Childhood’s End, by Arthur C. Clarke. Provide everyone with all the basic necessities of life – increase manufacturing of base goods to the extent that their prices plummet – free electricity, water, food, clothing, housing. Luxury goods then become the only marketable products – okay, I haven’t thought this through, and probably wont, since it’s starting to sound an awful lot like Microeconomics – but you see my point, I hope.
I don’t know any solution to this – and maybe a lot of people don’t even see it as a problem. If you do, however, and you have a couple of minutes to spare – any ideas?
8 comments:
deliver a drug to all pregnant woman, maybe through drinking water to stunt the development of newborns' higher brain functions. each new generation will be "equal", or at least the inequalities will not manifest themselves as dramatically as they do now. each person will be primarily concerned with the necessities, and it will take the maximum potential of one brain to feeds its organism. but who is our messiah? who can commit such a merciful act?
Ouch. Abrupt kind of solution, dont you think?
I was going more along the lines of separate centres for different classes of people - if it is indeed possible to classify people without pissing them off and starting riots.
I read this theory somewhere that the world is anyhow moving towards the industrial-city stage, that countries will no longer be the defining characteristic, but rather a large city state for each industrial sector in each part of the world. Iron ore, iron city, large farmlands, agricultural city, kind of thing.
In that case, well, there's a start, no? If it's possible to figure out the kid's primary talents, it should be possible to find out which sector would suit him the most, and then arrange for him to go there - also means the breakdown of the family structure.
Aldolus Huxley, A Brave New World.
Chilling.
equality be damned but this is rather prolific, eh fig? there's something about sitting in an office doing nothing in front of a computer equipped with high-speed internet and a mind that is forced to appear fresh that brings out tons and tons of post-material, what? enjoy it while it lasts kid.
oh, and watardoingforburday? take me out for a drink or six?
I swear, man. It's also the thought that if I dont have anything to post, I might actually have to sit down and do some work - spreadsheets are a device of satan. Especially when they're printed in size 2.5, and handed to you. 150 companies in 3 days. Fucking bankers.
what can i say? people definitely aren't equal, and nor are they treated in any such way. if everyone was, then there would be no need for reservation or any such policy right? another thing..respect is totally different from equality..you can give anyone any amount of respect, whether he or she is your boss or juniour. respect is taught..although it should be earned. equality, on the other hand is enforced. you can respect someone for who they are or the qualities that you admire them for..but you're compelled to treat someone as your equal because it's a basic human right..but hey who's to judge..you can respect your jamadaar for cleaning toilets for a living, but its not likely that you'd invite him to sit with you and have a cup of tea.. right? at least that's the case in india..where its just money and caste that determines who you are. in this society you can deserve all the respect and equality in the world, but the sad truth is you'll probably die fighting to earn it, and still never get it.
as for the economics part of it..if food electricity and such like things were to become free goods, they would still be goods in perfect competition..luxury goods on the other handwould then be goods in total monopolistic competition..then of course there's the whole arguement on perfectly contestable markets and other complicated economic issues..so i say..let it be..a little monopoly maybe ok in life.
btw baboon..
did you read 'a brave new world'? if you managed to get through the whole thing..could you just tell me in brief what the ending was about? because i made it through the first few chapters and then nearly ruptured a few veins..and gave up in hopeless agony..
Basic respect, yeah, I think should be taught.
I don't think it's fair to judge a person before you get to know them - there could be a thousand reasons that you just havent thought of for a person's point of view/situation in life/perspective in life. Not to say that you have to agree with them or anything - just not judge - besides, the conclusion you reach might be entirely wrong.
Live and let live, I suppose, although that does bring in a rather large measure of indifference to your everyday nature. For wiser minds than mine to ponder, yes.
Brave New World wise - to tell the truth, I was bloody dissapointed with it. The kind of rave reviews I'd got on it from friends and family...anyhow.
That man and woman go off to the reservation, right? Basically, at the reservation, they find a woman who used to be part of the civilised world, but got lost and abandoned on a trip - the supervisors woman, if you've read that far. She's also got a son with her, which she couldnt abort, cause she'd run out of the drugs, or something like that.
They bring her and her son back to civilisation, and immediately a brouhaha erupts, etc, etc.
The woman dies, because she winds up using that wierd drug (one cubic cm removes 10 bad thoughts kind of thing) to stay in a permanant state of oblivion.
The son cant take this complete culture shock, so he tries to run away. Finds an abandoned ligthouse, sets up there, practices self flagellation to atone for his "crimes" (You'll have to read the book to figure that bit out- it's so twisted that there's no way I can explain it. Basically he falls in love with some woman, and her lack of sexual morals makes him think that he sinned, or something like that).
Basically, he gets spotted beating himself up, so a lot of people turn up, his oddity makes him a celebrity, so he gets even more attention.
In the end, he kills himself.
There's only one bit in the entire book worth reading, and that's about two pages long. Clash of civilisations kind of thing - the book, in my humble opinion, is a colossal waste of time. It's a piece of utter nonsense, just raised to such extreme levels of adulation cause it fit the artsy-bourgeoise kind of profile - overrated, pointless, garbage. And the fucker can't string a sentence to save his life, either.
Interesting concept, though, that's the best I can say for it.
Sorry, Mr. Huxley, or his devoted fans, if I'm crapping all over your Bible. I don't feel too happy today, so I'm just lashing out.
Nonetheless, a terrific letdown.
wow..good thing i didn't read further then..sounds like a shitload of crap..i can't believe the english faculty of my school recommended it..anyway..thanks..at least now i feel better that i prefer lord of the rings to books like this!
Post a Comment